Bandorski Dirk, Gehron Johannes, Höltgen Reinhard
Dirk Bandorski, Medical Clinic II, University Hospital Giessen und Marburg GmbH, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Apr 16;5(4):201-2. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i4.201.
Our Letter to the Editor, related to the article "Small bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Outcome analysis using telemetry" by Cuschieri et al, comments on some small errors, that slipped into the authors discussions. The given informations concerning the pacemaker- and implantable cardioverter defibrillators modes were inaccurate and differ between the text and the table. Moreover, as 8 of 20 patient's pacemakers were programmed to VOO or DOO ("interference mode") and one patient was not monitored by telemetry during capsule endoscopy, 9 of 20 patients (45%) lack the informations of possible interference between capsule endoscopy their implanted device. Another objection refers to the interpretation of an electrocardiogram (figure 1, trace B) presented: in contrast to the author's opinion the marked spike should be interpreted as an artefact and not as "undersensing of a fibrillatory wave". Finally, three comments to cited reviews were not complete respectively not quoted correctly.
我们给编辑的信,与库斯基耶里等人发表的《心脏起搏器和植入式心脏复律除颤器患者的小肠胶囊内镜检查:使用遥测技术的结果分析》一文相关,针对作者讨论中出现的一些小错误发表评论。文中给出的有关起搏器和植入式心脏复律除颤器模式的信息不准确,文本和表格之间存在差异。此外,20例患者中有8例起搏器被设置为VOO或DOO(“干扰模式”),并且有1例患者在胶囊内镜检查期间未进行遥测监测,20例患者中有9例(45%)缺乏关于胶囊内镜检查与植入设备之间可能存在干扰的信息。另一个异议涉及对所呈现的一份心电图(图1,记录B)的解读:与作者的观点相反,明显的尖峰应被解读为伪迹,而不是“对颤动波的感知不足”。最后,对所引用综述的三条评论分别不完整或引用不正确。